Steam'i Yükleyin
giriş
|
dil
简体中文 (Basitleştirilmiş Çince)
繁體中文 (Geleneksel Çince)
日本語 (Japonca)
한국어 (Korece)
ไทย (Tayca)
Български (Bulgarca)
Čeština (Çekçe)
Dansk (Danca)
Deutsch (Almanca)
English (İngilizce)
Español - España (İspanyolca - İspanya)
Español - Latinoamérica (İspanyolca - Latin Amerika)
Ελληνικά (Yunanca)
Français (Fransızca)
Italiano (İtalyanca)
Bahasa Indonesia (Endonezce)
Magyar (Macarca)
Nederlands (Hollandaca)
Norsk (Norveççe)
Polski (Lehçe)
Português (Portekizce - Portekiz)
Português - Brasil (Portekizce - Brezilya)
Română (Rumence)
Русский (Rusça)
Suomi (Fince)
Svenska (İsveççe)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamca)
Українська (Ukraynaca)
Bir çeviri sorunu bildirin
Tartışma Kuralları ve Yönergeleri
Bu iletiyi bildir
but art to me is a skill and talent.. da vinci, vermeer, the builders of cathedrals.
I not at all like van gogh, and much less anything that came after.. like mondrian..
thats perhaps nice as a print on your wall as wallpaper.. but not art in my book.
and when we enter pollak, and such aka conceptual art.. well lets say
modern art is a taxfraud and a scam. and most amateur artists make qualitively better stuff.
I not believe in copyright in any form.. and believe it is criminal to have copyright laws.
-> would I not as an consumer of proper art want to buy pieces straight of the original author.. or have him commision some for me?
but I do recognise authorship rights.. while I see it wrong that I have to pay the writer of a song some money, to be allowed to play that song with my amateur orchestra.. and see no harm if people share my poems and even use them on their websites..
->
it becomes different when people start commercialising it.. aka when as a writer people start printing my book and selling them.
-> especially if they make it so that people cannot see the different between the version that I sell as an author.. and that one.
so in that train of thought.. AI uses the works of many artists as sources to create those AI works.
**this would not be a problem for non commecial use.. but when it starts being used commercially.. that it would be only fair that like papers.. AI is required to list upon publication all their sources.. and pay something to those original sources if those authors are still alive.
if I write a paper.. I must also list my sources... I don't see why AI should not also list all the text documents, images, and sound samples they used to create the piece.
sure one could just stack a flat tax on all AI generatred stuff and divide that money amoungst artists.. sounds great in theory...
but than how to divide that pot?
you just know that it going to be heavyely skewed towards "artists" that rarely if ever actually are used by the AI as source, while the actual source get ziltch.. it also makes it for smaller artists prohibilty hard to get part.
-> so NO on this proposal.
but yes on AI generated art must list their sources.
especially for people with conditions that make them be considered "dysfunctional" by society, those of us who cannot be reduced to cogs in the machine
as for ai... genuinely just, ♥♥♥♥ ai bros
ai should be used as a tool to ease processes, not as a replacement for people
the ones who claim to be such don't make the art, it's the computers that make it
no.
copyright is criminal I share my poems freely.. and believe all works should
I trust that people who like your arts.. will visit an musicians concerts, will buy books printed and signed by the original author, and so on.
authorship rights are different from copyright laws.. and I want to preserve authorship laws but aboslish copyright laws.
as such yeah you can use my poems freely for whatever.. but when you think HEH I copy that book of yours as in exactly the same book and even your signature.. than the issue is not copyright.. it is identity theft.
copyright laws lead to insanity.,. where I as an consumer pay 25 euro to a cd, the studio gets 1.20 euro.. and the artist 6 cent.. it does not help varity/small artists at all and mostly excist to defend lables/studios/publishers NOT artists.. we not need artists to be millionairs I rather have a million artists earning a livable wage than the rather small grouping we have now.
even worse..this happend for real :
***my brother composes a music piece (he litterly wrote all the sheat music) for a piece.. .
**he was paid for this by my dad.. who ordered him to do so as part of a charity-organisation my dad was leading at the time.
**this music piece than was played by 2 amateur music bands.. one of these was directed by my brother.,. and his orchestra.. the other was the local band of the town the charity firm would make a donation to.
**of this coopoeration was made a recording.. all of this was paid for by the charity firm.
**these cd's than were sold below costprice back to the players of said bands + a few donators of the charity cause.
than buma-stemra the dutch organisation for copyright comes 'thats an official cd, with an global imei code and all.. gotta pay your copyright fees.. 6% per sold cd.
-> they totally ignored what it costed to make the cd, they only wanted their cut of the proceeds.
-> my brother than was like : err I am the author.. I never asked you to defend me.. what the heck is this noncense..
**buma-stemra just states we have the right to claim copyright for ALL.. by default.
->
my brother than stated ok fine give me my copyright fees (planning to just donate them back to the charity cause)...
***
Buma-stemra : cannot you aint member... to claim your membership fees you need to be member
**
brother : wtf.. ok how do I become member?
**
buma-stemra : sign up for life.. it will cost 600 euro per year membership fee.
**
brother wtf.. the proceeds of this year are just 900 euro.. how is this fair?
**
buma stemra.. do you want to sign up?
**
brother.. ok but just for this year than..
**
buma-stemra : cannot.. you can only sign up for life..
so THATS copyright.. it is robbing smal,ler artists and it is WRONG.. it also killes fan project.. harasses churches and weddings for playing a song and such...
nobody is saying artists should no be paid.. but my brother WAS payd in this case commission to write the piece.
and that should have been enough.
-> and there CERTAINLY should not be copyright fees on bloody cd's of authors not even member of a copyright firm.
I also don't see how I have the right to forever earn on something.. or worse transfer that right... if an author dies.. imediatly all his works should become public doman.. corporations should not be able to hold claims of ownership of art
Depending if it's limited to mere tool or not, humans could be essentially creating an artificial next step in the evolution ladder, which would mean the current humans are like our long lost cousins the Neanderthal, and thus """obsolete""" & """"inefficient"""" / """"waste of resources""""" in the calculus of AGI / Singularity. So what could possibly go wrong?
In regards to competition, yes do agree.
we do largely have an economic system that's pretty much evolution but with money, in spite of being more than capable of seeing the gaping moral holes in deliberately implementing a system based on it
still, that doesn't mean we shouldn't bother talking about what should happen
Best case scenario. Generative AI is just a predictive algorithm. Like a weather forecast. Predictive algorithms aren't creative expression so they can't be art.
Worst case scenario. Generative AI is a predictive algorithm built off plagiarism. Plagiarism especially isn't "art" by definition. When Gene Simmon's son stole work from Bleach's author and many other authors that wasn't considered "art". That was just considered plagiarism.